Well, quite a debate, and that's good.
"With prejudice" simply means that the family and Disney cannot have another lawsuit about this same issue. It means the case has settled, and neither party can sue each other again over this boy's death unless one or the other fails to abide by the settlement terms. For example, if Disney doesn't pay, or the family breaches a secrecy provision, the lawsuit could start up again against the breaching party only. By the way, I assume the case settled for something between $500,000 and $5 million, but I may be way off on that. I seriously doubt it exceeded $10 million. If I were to bet, I would say $ 1.25 million.
When I suggested my 6 year old rule, I was thinking as an insurance company and lawyer would think. No, I would not require birth certificates or a great deal of enforcement by CMs. Signage and a polite "Is your child over 6?" by the same CMs who check for height is all that I anticipate. If the parents say "yes", that's the end of it. Perhaps a simple sign that says, "Disney does not recommend that guests under the age of 6 ride this attraction". Believe me, even that could have prevented this death or avoided the lawsuit. Perhaps every attraction would have an age rating like toys and movies already have.
Yes, many children under 6 will easily tolerate the most thrilling of rides, but the height requirement shows that Disney indeed recognizes that some rides are not appropriate for smaller (younger) children. Of course, the height requirement discriminates against little people and stunted children. Some taller kindergarteners can ride anything while some tough but shorter 3rd graders are limited to less thrilling attractions. This isn't perfect, but the method is widely used even though it is not perfectly fair to everyone. Of course, height becomes an issue with seat design and straps on some rides, but that is another subject for debate.
When I mentioned green versions, I did not literally mean that alternate rides go side by side on every attraction. That would be absurdly cost-prohibitive. I merely advocated for the less intense areas of existing attractions, such as back rows or less bumpy areas. Fewer bumps and less volume night be doable when certain cars ride through Dinosaur, for example, but it might mean a major cost-prohibitive overhaul. I assume the greening of Mission Space was relatively inexpensive by comparison--just stop the centrifuge and make other relatively minor adjustments.
By the way, I believe having less intense versions, when fiscally and physically possible, enhances the usage and enjoyment of an attraction. Until this year, my wife and son refused to even try Mission Space. This year, they rode the green version at least a dozen times; it was my son's favorite ride by far. Neither of them rode the orange version, but they didn't need that degree of intensity to thoroughly enjoy the experience.
In my opinion, future attractions may even be designed with green versions. Can you imagine an Everest green line that goes through the mountain on a less intense route, doesn't go backward for any extensive period, and sees a less scary yeti, or the same yeti but from a distance? Green versions may be the future. Adding such a track to any of the coasters would be nearly impossible now, but future designers might put this in. My son wouild love a less intense version of the roller coasters I bet. Just a thought.
